Obsidian Entertainment - Jason Fader AMAA @ Reddit

July 22nd, 2012, 13:46

I've filed this under "Obsidian" because the overwhelming number of questions relate to Fallout: New Vegas where Jason Fader was the lead producer, even though he has since left to be an indie. As is often the case with these Ask Me Almost Anything Q&As, picking a quote is hard:

Why'd you leave Obsidian?
Some of them got jobs at other studios since they needed to support themselves. For the rest, they're on my team and we're having a blast working together. You can find out more about our project here :-)
I was laid off in March with a bunch of the guys I worked on FNV with. I have no hard feelings about it. These things happen and Obsidian is a great studio. The following day most of us went out for drinks and that's when I was being asked by everyone when I would start my own studio. I wasn't planning on it at the time, but I wanted to keep this family together.

Interesting AMA, but I think there is some fundamental flaw in the concept of holding a Kickstarter for a Free-To-Play game.

If the game is free, there's nothing to buy but virtual items, and the vast majority of people who play F2P games never spend a dime. Those who do usually only buy stuff after they are hooked on the game and invested in the character progression.

Originally Posted by CountChocula
Interesting AMA, but I think there is some fundamental flaw in the concept of holding a Kickstarter for a Free-To-Play game.

I've been wondering about these kickstarters myself. And before I say anything further let it be known that I have nothing against kickstarters. They represent capitalism at its best when saying as much these days isn't exactly a popular thing to do.

Under a "normal" business arrangment, where you have a developer and publisher, from what I understand, the publisher funds the devloper and the publisher is paid back those funds plus a pre-determined profit after the game ships. The developer keeps whatever is left, if anything.

Under a kickstarter arrangement, fans fund the project with a zero cash-based return. You get the game and depending on how much you donate other various items and perks. But the devlopers are free to hold on to the investment cash and use it to develop the game and I guess, keep whatever might be left over - plus any cash that may come in from sales of the game after it is finished.

Kickstarters seem to be a double-win for the developers.

Am I correct on how I view this?

— If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer
I've been wondering about these kickstarters myself. And before I say anything further let it be known that I have nothing against kickstarters. They represent capitalism at its best when saying as much these days isn't exactly a popular thing to do.

Under a "normal" business arrangment, where you have a developer and publisher, from what I understand, the publisher funds the devloper and the publisher is paid back those funds plus a pre-determined profit after the game ships. The developer keeps whatever is left, if anything.

Under a kickstarter arrangement, fans fund the project with a zero cash-based return. You get the game and depending on how much you donate other various items and perks. But the devlopers are free to hold on to the investment cash and use it to develop the game and I guess, keep whatever might be left over - plus any cash that may come in from sales of the game after it is finished.

Kickstarters seem to be a double-win for the developers.

Am I correct on how I view this?

And that is a great thing. How many times have we heard stories of how a game with great potential was crippled by publishers requirements. This way, developers get to make all the decisions (which can be both a blessing and a curse)

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer
Under a "normal" business arrangment, where you have a developer and publisher, from what I understand, the publisher funds the devloper and the publisher is paid back those funds plus a pre-determined profit after the game ships. The developer keeps whatever is left, if anything.

Depends on the status of developer. If it's an inhouse developer I don't think profits are always earmarked as being earned and therefore saved for this or that internal developer. For example EA sports or Sims titles (little investment/large return) profits aren't used solely on EA Sports or Sims titles. The profits often end up funding other franchises or even help having a bit of money seperate so they can risk a new IP now and again. In this system developers are just employees, that does however not protect them from being fired if a title fails. They might receive bonusses however.

But yes, with external development studios for funded titles that's how it works.

With some external studios it isn't even the publisher who has funded the game but a third party and a publisher only as distributor. A recent example was Kingdoms of Amalur where Big Huge Games was the developer it's mother company 38 Studios the ones who funded and EA the ones who published. That might also be the reason for the varying perception of what entailed a success for the title.

I like their world, while not exactly original or groundbreaking, it sounds like a fun place and by concept arts looks (will look) nice. However, no wonder they have trouble raising money - it sounds exactly like every 2nd game on FB.

I'm currently replaying F:NV on PC with all the expansions (thx to the recent Steam Sale). I played it originally on the PS3 and suffered thru that version's plagued launch (crash-bugs, etc.). Talk about an embarrassment of riches; this PC Ultimate Ed., for which I paid a paltry 9.99 (granted that's after I paid full-price for the PS3 version + one expansion), is so well-done and plays/looks so good on my newish PC that it's just a phenomenally fun gaming experience.

I've always been an Elder Scrolls fan, going back to Daggerfall, but nothing Bethsoft has ever done comes close to this. The quests are entertaining, the dialogue is quite funny at times, and the exploration is fabulous. And, best of all, there's no filler. It's an open-world game that actual "feels" like a world, with everything in its proper place.

Were Bethsoft to approve a new Fallout game from this same team, using the Skyrim engine, I'd be one happy camper. I know the original release was buggy, which may have soured the relationship between the two companies, but I also suspect the game brought back a sizable chunk of $$ to Bethsoft that they'd like to see again(?).